How to Argue for Human Rights: Philosophical Foundations

The Concept of Human Rights

Human rights are rights that every person possesses simply by virtue of being human. They are universal (they apply to all people everywhere), inalienable (they cannot be taken away), and fundamental (they are more important than other moral and political considerations). The idea of human rights is one of the most powerful and influential moral ideas in human history, providing the foundation for international law, global justice movements, and the moral evaluation of political regimes.

The philosophical challenge is to provide a compelling justification for the claim that human rights exist — that there are moral rights that all human beings possess, regardless of their culture, nationality, religion, or other characteristics. The major traditions of moral and political philosophy offer different arguments for human rights, each with its own strengths and limitations.

The Natural Law Argument

The natural law tradition, rooted in the work of Thomas Aquinas and developed by John Locke, argues that human rights are derived from the natural law — the moral law that is inherent in the nature of human beings and the world. On this view, human rights are not created by governments or by human conventions but are discovered through reason as the principles that are necessary for human flourishing.

Locke argued that all individuals possess natural rights to life, liberty, and property, and that the purpose of government is to protect these rights. The natural law argument provides a powerful foundation for human rights because it grounds them in the nature of human beings and the requirements of human flourishing, rather than in the contingent decisions of particular societies.

The Kantian Argument

Immanuel Kant provided the most influential philosophical argument for human rights in the modern period. Kant's moral philosophy is based on the principle of respect for persons — the idea that every human being must be treated as an end in themselves, never merely as a means to an end.

The Kantian argument for human rights proceeds as follows: All human beings are rational agents with the capacity for autonomy — the capacity to give themselves the moral law through their own reason. Because of this capacity, each person has a dignity that is beyond all price and cannot be exchanged for any equivalent. The respect that is due to each person as a rational agent is the foundation of human rights. Human rights are the conditions under which the dignity of persons can be respected and their autonomy can be exercised.

The Capabilities Argument

Amartya Sen and Martha Nussbaum have developed the capabilities approach as an alternative framework for arguing for human rights. The capabilities approach shifts the focus from what people have to what people are able to do and be. Human rights, on this view, are rights to the capabilities that are necessary for a flourishing human life.

Nussbaum has developed a list of ten central capabilities that she argues are essential for any life that is fully human: life, bodily health, bodily integrity, senses/imagination/thought, emotions, practical reason, affiliation, other species, play, and control over one's environment. Each of these capabilities corresponds to a human right — the right to be able to exercise that capability.

The Discourse Ethics Argument

Jürgen Habermas has developed a procedural argument for human rights based on his theory of discourse ethics. Habermas argues that the legitimacy of moral norms depends on their being the outcome of a process of rational discourse in which all affected parties have had an equal opportunity to participate.

On this view, human rights are not discovered through metaphysical reasoning about human nature but are constructed through the process of rational discourse. The participants in discourse, if they are free and equal, would agree on certain basic rights as the conditions of their continued participation in discourse. These rights — to freedom of speech, to equal participation, to bodily integrity, and so on — are the human rights that are implicit in the practice of rational discourse.

Addressing Cultural Relativism

One of the most important challenges to arguments for human rights is cultural relativism — the claim that human rights are Western constructs that do not apply to non-Western societies. The response to this challenge requires showing that the values underlying human rights are not exclusively Western but are found in all major cultural traditions. The effectiveness of human rights arguments depends on their ability to speak to the moral resources of diverse cultural traditions.